3 ms·

no, that’s completely wrong. You are confusing averages and conditional probabilities. On average, those from higher classes may do better - that doesn’t mean

no, that’s completely wrong. You are confusing averages and conditional probabilities. On average, those from higher classes may do better - that doesn’t mean that a kid from s lower social class should take that as guidance. It means we should try to erase or lessen differences of opportunities between classes. Some of these differences are probably innate. A brain surgeon is likely smart and his kids are probably also smart. Some, but most are due to informational deficiencies and networking effects.

mlyle 7y ago
> no, that’s completely wrong. You are confusing averages and conditional probabilities. On average, those from higher classes may do better - that doesn’t mean that a kid from s lower social class should take that as guidance. ??? You're saying that someone should not consider the outcome distribution of people similarly situated to themselves when making a choice? Isn't that completely rejecting empiricism? If, from a public policy standpoint, our effort has been to get to the poor to college to end poverty; and the educated poor do do better with education, but not nearly as well as their middle-class cohort; and the present-value of education is smaller than the present-value of their lifetime wage increases-- one has to question whether the policy is well informed. If you're asserting that the picture is unduly distorted by those at the very highest spread of the income distribution-- you're right. But the effect is still when we look at median outcomes. > Some of these differences are probably innate. A brain surgeon is likely smart and his kids are probably also smart. Presumably we'd be able to measure this and control for this. > Some, but most are due to informational deficiencies and networking effects. Yes, and various kinds of cultural cues about class of upbringing that persist after education and act to limit opportunity.
- vasilipupkin 7y ago
  “??? You're saying that someone should not consider the outcome distribution of people similarly situated to themselves when making a choice? Isn't that completely rejecting empiricism?“ No, what I’m saying is presence of a statistical pattern in a whole population is not evidence that we shouldn’t make policy to change it. Statistically, those who live in Miami are more tan than those who live in Wisconsin, on average. But if you expose a Wisconsin resident to the same amount of sun, on average they will be just as tan.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    ??? We're comparing the income difference (and ratio) between (poor background + college education) and (poor background + no college education) to the income difference between (non-poor background + college education) and (non-poor background + no college education). In your example, you'd expect the Wisconsin guy to increase in tan more when you put him in the Bahamas and give him a dose of sun than the guy who started out in Miami and was given an equivalent further dose of sun. But we've measured the opposite-- the guy in Wisconsin (poor background) does get more tan, but doesn't increase in tan (increase in income) nearly as much as the guy who started in Miami (non-poor backgrounds).
    - vasilipupkin 7y ago
      No, because we haven’t done nearly enough for the poor guy. It’s not the case that we’ve done everything possible for the poor and they still didn’t improve much. That’s false.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        We're measuring the effect of one thing-- getting a poor person to college-- composed with all the other interventions that are spread through the population. We measure the value of this-- getting to college-- as very small and even possibly negative. We also measure interventions and their values / impacts on earnings much higher. Going "la la la but college would be much better and itself a win if we did 50 other supportive things" is all great, but it's fundamentally handwaving in the absence of evidence.
        vasilipupkin 7y ago
        No, we don’t measure this. The study in question tries to make college wage premium go away using questionable control variables. Sure, some skilled trades can make more money than liberal arts grads. But very few people want to be plumbers or work on an oil rig and for good reason.

mlyle 7y ago

> no, that’s completely wrong. You are confusing averages and conditional probabilities. On average, those from higher classes may do better - that doesn’t mean that a kid from s lower social class should take that as guidance. ??? You're saying that someone should not consider the outcome distribution of people similarly situated to themselves when making a choice? Isn't that completely rejecting empiricism? If, from a public policy standpoint, our effort has been to get to the poor to college to end poverty; and the educated poor do do better with education, but not nearly as well as their middle-class cohort; and the present-value of education is smaller than the present-value of their lifetime wage increases-- one has to question whether the policy is well informed. If you're asserting that the picture is unduly distorted by those at the very highest spread of the income distribution-- you're right. But the effect is still when we look at median outcomes. > Some of these differences are probably innate. A brain surgeon is likely smart and his kids are probably also smart. Presumably we'd be able to measure this and control for this. > Some, but most are due to informational deficiencies and networking effects. Yes, and various kinds of cultural cues about class of upbringing that persist after education and act to limit opportunity.

vasilipupkin 7y ago
“??? You're saying that someone should not consider the outcome distribution of people similarly situated to themselves when making a choice? Isn't that completely rejecting empiricism?“ No, what I’m saying is presence of a statistical pattern in a whole population is not evidence that we shouldn’t make policy to change it. Statistically, those who live in Miami are more tan than those who live in Wisconsin, on average. But if you expose a Wisconsin resident to the same amount of sun, on average they will be just as tan.
- mlyle 7y ago
  ??? We're comparing the income difference (and ratio) between (poor background + college education) and (poor background + no college education) to the income difference between (non-poor background + college education) and (non-poor background + no college education). In your example, you'd expect the Wisconsin guy to increase in tan more when you put him in the Bahamas and give him a dose of sun than the guy who started out in Miami and was given an equivalent further dose of sun. But we've measured the opposite-- the guy in Wisconsin (poor background) does get more tan, but doesn't increase in tan (increase in income) nearly as much as the guy who started in Miami (non-poor backgrounds).
  - vasilipupkin 7y ago
    No, because we haven’t done nearly enough for the poor guy. It’s not the case that we’ve done everything possible for the poor and they still didn’t improve much. That’s false.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      We're measuring the effect of one thing-- getting a poor person to college-- composed with all the other interventions that are spread through the population. We measure the value of this-- getting to college-- as very small and even possibly negative. We also measure interventions and their values / impacts on earnings much higher. Going "la la la but college would be much better and itself a win if we did 50 other supportive things" is all great, but it's fundamentally handwaving in the absence of evidence.
      - vasilipupkin 7y ago
        No, we don’t measure this. The study in question tries to make college wage premium go away using questionable control variables. Sure, some skilled trades can make more money than liberal arts grads. But very few people want to be plumbers or work on an oil rig and for good reason.